These 7 appeals are decided by the single decision. The learned Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, decided the 7 applications filed the respondents under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, vide its order, dated 21-7-1985.
2. The facts which pertained to the respondents are that respondent, Muhammad Yousuf was charge-sheeted on 31-12-1983, for abusing the Labour Officer, Mr. Javed Iqbal. The letter of enquiry in his case was issued on 5-2-1984, and order of his dismissal was issued on 12-2-1984, But, the grievance notice was served by Muhammad Yousuf much earlier and admittedly before the dismissal on 19-2-1984. The second respondent, Naseem Gul was charge-sheeted on 31-12-1983 for remaining absent without leave for more than 10 days. His letter of enquiry was issued on 12-1-1984.
Two adjournments of enquiry were granted in his case. The order of his dismissal was issued on 24- 3-1984. However, the grievance notice was given by him before his dismissal order was issued to him. Similarly, Ali Bahadur, the respondent, was charge-sheeted on 24-1-1984 for remaining absent without leave for more than 10 days. Letter of enquiry in his case was issued on 11-2-1984 and the order of dismissal is dated 24-3-1984. But, his grievance notice was before passing of order of his dismissal and it was on 15-1-1984. Siraj Ahmad, the respondent, was charge-sheeted on 12-2-1984 and the letter of enquiry is dated 17-3-1984. The dismissal order of his services was issued on 25-3- 1984, and he too served notice of grievance before the order of dismissal of his services was issued on 15-1-1984. Muhammad Ayub, the respondent, was charge-sheeted on 25-1-1984 and letter of enquiry is dated 17-3-1984. Dismissal order was issued on 25-3-1984, whereas his notice of grievance was much earlier, dated 15-1-1984. Muhammad Qayum, the respondent, was also - charge-sheeted on 14-1-1984 and his letter of enquiry is dated 19-1-1184. Dismissal order issued on 16-2-1984, whereas notice of grievance se ved by the respondent upon appellants is dated 15-1- 1984. Respondent Johar Shah was charge-sheeted on 31-12-1982. The letter of enquiry in his case was issued on 19-1-1984 and the order of dismissal was issued on 11-2-1984. The respondent also served premature grievance notice on 1-1-1984.
3. The stand taken by the appellant management is that the grievance notices of even dates before passing of the actual dismissal orders of the respondents were given. Joint application of different grievances is also not maintainable. They denied the fact that they had compelled any worker to resign from the job, but, the true fact is that many weavers have resigned on their own accord and cleared their dues. The respondents were not removed from service but they were dismissed.
4. The matters were in appeal and I have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani for the appellant management and Mr. Ibne Ayub for the respondents. Main point in these cases as stressed by the learned representative for the appellant management is that the grievance notices issued by the respondents were much earlier than their dismissal from services. Therefore, these notices do not carry any weight. Grievance notice is must for a grievance petition. Grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, nowhere challenged the orders of dismissal. These orders of dismissal are admittedly issued after the grievance petitions filed by the 7 respondents in the Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. The admitted fact is that no application was moved by the respondent workers to amend their grievance petitions. Since the order of dismissal is not the subject-matter either in the grievance notices or in the grievance petitions, therefore, same could not be impugned by the respondent workers before the Labour Court.
5. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the High Court in Constitutional Petition No. 152 of 1976, dated 6-5-1984, in which following material observations are relevant to the facts of the present cases:- ---It is well-established that the decision of the case cannot be passed on the grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. The petitioners union wanted to shift their ground of attack without seeking amendment of the application under Order 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 and without which the petitioners are not entitled to do so.---
6. The reliance is placed, on 1978 PLC 475, where Mr. Justice H. T. Raymond in the similar matter considered that the petition was premature. In a case reported in 1979 PLC 227, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., was of the view that where grievance notice was served prior to the date of letter of issuance of the dismissal such grievance notice cannot be treated as a valid grievance notice and worker cannot be permitted to impugn the termination of service on the basis of such premature notice of grievance. Further, in the case, reported in 1980 PLC 906, Mr. Justice Z.A.
Channa, Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the petition filed before any action is taken, is premature petition and that the worker should seek his redressal against the dismissal only after the final action.
7. These authorities are relied upon and argued by the learned representative for the appellant management. I feel that he is right. Notice of grievance was earlier than the impugned order of dismissal in all these cases and the very petition was earlier than the date of A dismissal of the workers in the domestic enquiry. They have not made applications for amending their grievance petitions. As such, I feel that these matters are not in consonance with law, therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
8. The result is that these seven appeals are allowed.